This page was last updated on July 23, 2013.
Unions Demand Democrats Fix Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]; James P. Hoffa, Joseph Hansen, D. Taylor; Progressive Democrats of America – PA 12th CD Chapter; July 17, 2013.
You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here.
This is a letter from three labor union presidents to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Were it not a serious topic, labor union management (LUMsters) complaining they got hosed by Obamacare would be hilarious. Please read my paper entitled “Healthcare.”
Though just as wrong, BCR always preferred Medicare for All (a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly) over Obamacare and still does. Worry not, lefties. Medicare for All is the long-term goal of Obamacare. Remember, with zero votes from Republicans, Obamacare barely passed. In the Senate, passage required unanimous Democrat support (some of which was wavering) to beat a filibuster, and in the House Obamacare passed by only seven votes (34 Democrats voted “no”). With no margin for error, Democrat leaders settled for Obamacare only because they knew there was no way they could get enough Democrat votes for a full-blown, government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly akin to Medicare for All.
Below is a critique of the letter.
“Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:
“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
[RWC] The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is Obamacare. As for the promise that if Americans “liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them,” no one could honestly make that promise. Anyone with a lick of commonsense – including these LUMsters – knew this was an impossible claim long before Obamacare became law. For these men now to claim ignorance is deceitful. Heck, let’s ignore commonsense. Are LUMsters telling us their lawyers didn’t do a full analysis of the bill before LUMsters threw their support behind it? Are we to believe LUMsters threw tons of member-earned dollars and manpower at passing a law yet didn’t know what that law did?
When then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “But we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it,” did that not concern the LUMsters? Shouldn’t LUMsters have found out what was in Obamacare before they supported it and urged representatives and senators to vote for it?
“Equitable fix” means changes to benefit LUMsters.
The LUMsters were neither ignorant nor stupid. Despite their “we didn’t know” act, the LUMsters knew of these issues long before the passage of Obamacare but made the politics-driven choice to ignore them because they wanted to get something – anything – passed before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Sometime after the days of Samuel Gompers, the primary business of labor unions devolved into political advocacy/lobbying for leftist politicians and policies/programs. Representing employees is now simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. (Where’s the IRS office of tax-exempt entities when you need it? <g>) Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.” No one will mistake Mr. Trumka and other LUMsters for Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and AFL president for 38 years until his death. AFL-CIO management spent over $29.6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In additional to the cash, the AFL-CIO has access to more than 11.7 million members (as of 2010) for “volunteer” political campaign work.
“Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.
“Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”
[RWC] The previous two paragraphs described a quid pro quo arrangement.
“Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community — extending the statutorily mandated ‘December 31, 2013’ deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.”
[RWC] If the LUMsters “have been bringing [their] deep concerns to the Administration” “since the ACA was enacted,” why did they not push to have the problems fixed before they urged Obamacare’s passage? As noted above, the answer is “politics.”
How persuasive could the “persuasive arguments” have been if they were “disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies?”
Though the letter says “employer,” the authors really mean “oppressor.”
“Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:”
[RWC] “Congress wrote this law?” It would be more accurate to say “Democrats wrote this law.” Not one Republican in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare.
“Unintended consequences?” A government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly (where things like Obamacare, Hillarycare, etc. lead) is about consolidation of power in government, not “access to quality, affordable health care.” Did the LUMsters really think their ideological brethren would share that power? If the shoe were on the other foot, do you think the LUMsters would share their power?
“First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”
[RWC] The letter says “fewer hours means less pay,” but the authors meant “fewer hours means less dues” collected by LUMsters. If you think the LUMsters care about “health benefits” beyond their political value, I have a bridge to sell you.
“Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.”
[RWC] Just as “employers,” “companies” means “oppressors.”
“Working men and women” does not mean what you think. More often than not, “working people” is leftyspeak for dues-paying union members (forced or by choice), just over 37% of government employees and just over 7% of the private sector workforce. A more general definition provided by Carl Davidson (a BCR member) is, “If someone else [signs your paycheck], you’re in the working class.” I suspect most business owners - large or small - (who pay SS and Medicare taxes just as the rest of us) would be surprised to learn they aren’t “in the working class.”
“And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.”
[RWC] The LUMsters need a better argument. I don’t benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, mortgage deductions, et cetera, but I’m “taxed to pay for those subsidies.”
When did lefties ever want a “health-care market?”
“On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.
“We believe that there are common-sense [sic] corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.”
[RWC] The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is Obamacare. As for the promise that if Americans “liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them,” no one could honestly make that promise. Anyone with a lick of commonsense – including these LUMsters – knew this was an impossible claim long before Obamacare became law. For these men now to claim ignorance is deceitful. Heck, let’s ignore commonsense. Are LUMsters telling us their lawyers didn’t do a full analysis of the bill before LUMsters threw their support behind it? Are we to believe LUMsters threw tons of member-earned dollars and manpower at passing a law yet didn’t know what that law did?
When then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “But we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it,” did that not concern the LUMsters? Shouldn’t LUMsters have found out what was in Obamacare before they supported it and urged representatives and senators to vote for it?
“Common-sense [sic] corrections” means changes to benefit LUMsters.
“We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.”
[RWC] “Real health care reform” means a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly except LUMsters get to share some of the power. If I were a LUMster, I wouldn’t bet my dues-paid pension on it.
“We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.”
[RWC] Too late. As the LUMsters knew all along but won’t admit, much of the guts of Obamacare was left to the discretion of the executive branch. That is, to speed passage, Democrats delegated Congress’ law-making power to various agencies, like the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the executive branch can crank out thousands of Obamacare regulations without the approval of Congress. That’s one reason Mrs. Pelosi made her “we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it” comment. Mrs. Pelosi knew much of the Obamacare lawmaking would not occur until after the bill’s passage. Unless House Republicans swallow a bunch of stupid pills (not impossible), Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are powerless. For now, Mr. Obama is the only hope for the LUMsters.
You can read more about regulations here.
The target audience for this letter is not Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid. This letter is a CYA effort for consumption by union members. Should union members get hosed by Obamacare as the LUMsters expect, the LUMsters don’t want members to storm their gates. The purpose of this letter is to mislead members into believing the LUMsters tried to keep Obamacare from having a negative effect on those members. Let’s hope union members see through this subterfuge.
Finally, I’m surprised there was no Republican-bashing in the letter. You know someone caught heck for that. <g>
“James P. Hoffa
“General President
“International Brotherhood of Teamsters
“Joseph Hansen
“International President
“UFCW
“D. Taylor
“President
“UNITE-HERE
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.